You are on page 1of 97

AGENDA

ANN ARBOR CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 p.m. – Tuesday, December 16, 2008

PLACE: GUY C. LARCOM, JR. MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 100 NORTH FIFTH AVENUE,
SECOND FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBER, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN

1. ROLL CALL

2. INTRODUCTIONS

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

a. Minutes of November 18, 2008.

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. REPORTS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATION, CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT


SERVICES MANAGER, PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES, WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

a. City Administration.

b. City Council.

c. Planning and Development Services Manager.

(1) Land Division Notification Letter for Bluffs Park/St. Thomas Cemetery – Distribute.

d. Planning Commission Officers and Committees.

e. Written Communications and Petitions.

(1) October and November 2008 Planning & Zoning News – Distribute.

(2) Letter from McKenna Associates regarding Renewable Energy – Distribute.

6. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (Persons may speak for three minutes about any item that is not
listed as a public hearing on this agenda.)

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR NEXT BUSINESS MEETING

8. REGULAR BUSINESS - Public Hearings and Commission Discussion of Each Item (Individuals
may speak for three minutes. The first person who is the official representative of an
organized group or who is representing the petitioner may speak for five minutes; additional
representatives may speak for three minutes. Commission regular meetings are held the
third Tuesday of each month. If an agenda item is tabled, it will most likely appear on a
future agenda. If you would like to be notified when a tabled agenda item will appear on a
future agenda, please provide your email address on the form provided at the meeting. Call
Planning and Development Services (994-2800) during office hours to obtain additional
information about the review schedule. You will not receive a direct mail notice of future
meetings. Staff reports are available at Planning and Development Services after 3:00 p.m.
on the Friday prior to each business and regular meeting.
Ann Arbor City Planning Commission
Agenda – December 16, 2008
Page 2

(a) Public Hearing and Action on Eleven Parkland Rezonings: (1) Dolph Park, 440 Park Lake
Avenue. A request to rezone this site from R1C (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land
District) for public park use. (2) Devonshire Park, Devonshire Road west of Hickory Lane. A
request to rezone this site from R1A (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land District) for
public park use. (3) Mary Beth Doyle Park (2 portions), west of Cardinal Avenue and south of
Verle Avenue. A request to rezone this site from R1C (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL
(Public Land District) for public park use. (4) Foxfire South Park (portion), south of South Foxridge
Court. A request to rezone this site from R1C (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land
District) for public park use. (5) Lakewood Park (portion), 3230 Central Avenue. A request to
rezone this site from R1C (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land District) for public
park use. (6) West Park (portion), 215 Chapin Street. A request to rezone this site from R4C
(Multiple-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land District) for public park use. (7) Argo Nature
Area (portion), south of Long Shore Drive & Railroad, west of Swift Street. A request to rezone this
site from M1 (Limited Industrial District) to PL (Public Land District) for public park use. (8)
Riverwood Nature Area (portion), at intersection of Victoria Circle and Alexandria Boulevard. A
request to rezone this site from PUD (Planned Unit Development District) to PL (Public Land
District) for public park use. (9) Oakridge Nature Area (portion), south of Glazier Way, east of
Huron Parkway. A request to rezone this site from PUD (Planned Unit Development District) to PL
(Public Land District) for public park use. (10) Cranbrook Park (portion), 300 West Oakbrook
Drive. A request to rezone this site from R4A (Multiple-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public Land
District) for public park use. (11) Brookside Park, northeast corner of Baylis Drive and Stone
School Road. A request to rezone this site from R1C (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PL (Public
Land District) for public park use – Staff Recommendation: Table

(b) Public Hearing and Action on Narrow Gauge Property Annexation and Zoning, south side of
Narrow Gauge Way. A request to annex this site into the City and zone it PL (Public Land District)
for public park use – Staff Recommendation: Table

(c) Public Hearing and Action on Adoption of the FY 2010-2015 Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP). The FY2010-2015 CIP identifies needs to be addressed related to the various City
infrastructure areas and outlines a schedule of public expenditures to address these needs for a
six-year period. Upon adoption by the City Planning Commission, the CIP becomes a supporting
document for the City’s master plan. The CIP is also used as the source document for the City’s
capital budget planning – Staff Recommendation: Approval

(d) Public Hearing and Action on 808 Tappan Street Site Plan. A proposal to construct a three-
story addition to and modify the existing structure for a total of four dwelling units (24 bedrooms
total) – Staff Recommendation: Approval

(e) Public Hearing and Action on 1012 Hill Street Site Plan. A proposal to construct a three-
story addition to and modify the existing structure for a total of four dwelling units (24 bedrooms
total) – Staff Recommendation: Approval

(f) Public Hearing and Action on 833 East University Avenue Site Plan. A proposal to construct
a three-story addition to and modify the existing structure for a total of four dwelling units (24
bedrooms total) – Staff Recommendation: Approval

(g) Action on Resolution to Request City Council to Authorize Distribution of the Draft Master
Plan: Land Use Element for Review and Comment to Adjoining Jurisdictions and Stakeholders –
Staff Recommendation: Approval

(h) Adoption of 2009 City Planning Commission Work Program.

9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (Persons may speak for three minutes on any item.)
Ann Arbor City Planning Commission
Agenda – December 16, 2008
Page 3

10. COMMISSION PROPOSED BUSINESS

11. ADJOURNMENT

Bonnie Bona, Chair

ANN ARBOR COMMUNITY TELEVISION NETWORK CHANNEL 16

LIVE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2008, 7:00 P.M.


REPLAYS: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 10:00 A.M. AND
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 3:00 P.M.

Persons with disabilities are encouraged to participate. Accommodations, including sign language
interpreters, may be arranged by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 994-2700 (V/TDD) at least 24
hours in advance.

jsj/12/12/08
MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 5, 2008

TO: City Planning Commissioners

FROM: Cresson S. Slotten, P.E., Senior Project Manager


Public Services Area – Systems Planning

RE: Draft FY2010-2015 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

As part of the Commission’s December 9, 2008 Work Session, I will be presenting to you
the draft FY2010-2015 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). To better prepare you for this
meeting, attached are copies of the following items:

• Section I of the Draft CIP document


• Draft CIP Category Project Schedules
• Slide handouts from the CIP Kick-Off PowerPoint Presentation (9/9/08)

Your attention is directed to the Program Summary portion of the Section I document as
it details the revisions that have been made to the CIP process this year. Particularly
noteworthy are:

• Collaborative approach by the CIP Category Teams in identifying needs and key
scope items related to them, as well as the prioritizing and scheduling of the
projects to address the needs
• Pilot use of a detailed prioritization model tool for Parks and Recreation, Bridge
and Water System Projects
• Collectively scheduling of projects based on the priorities, available funding and
staff resource capacity to perform the work

At the Work Session I will briefly describe how some particular items of interest to the
Planning Commission are handled by the CIP. In order to make this time more efficient,
below is some background on these points of discussion.

Downtown Infrastructure Improvements

The City’s downtown area has recently been the location of the majority of development
interest and activity. As part of the review of these proposals, comments and concerns
are raised about the capacity of the City’s infrastructure systems to handle the additional
capacity that will be generated by these developments. The present City policy
regarding how to mitigate a situation where a system is pushed beyond its capacity by a
development, but is currently functioning adequately, is that the developer causing that
impact must perform the work to mitigate that situation.

Staff has recognized with the development activity in the downtown area, the
underground sanitary system and portions of the water system serving this area are still
the original facilities from early in the last century when they were constructed to serve a
much less dense use - - typically 2 or 3-story buildings with many having first floor dry
mercantile use with the shop or building owner’s residence or a single office in the upper

Page 1 of 2

S:\System Planning\CIP\FY2010-2015 CIP\CIP committee\WorkSessionCoverMemo.doc


floors. These original uses are far less intense in their demand of the City’s utility
systems. But again, these systems are still functioning well and are not at the end of
their useful lives requiring replacement.

With the push-pull dynamic of the downtown development focus and these utility
systems, senior City staff are examining what other options may be available besides or
instead of the present policy, for implementing utility system capacity
upgrades/mitigation when that situation arises in the future.

As this examination is still underway and we are still operating under the current policy,
there is not a tremendous amount of sanitary sewer or water main projects in the
downtown included in the CIP.

Elevated Water Storage in West Side of the City

There continues to be a project proposed in the CIP to construct an elevated storage


tank in the West High Service District on the west side of the City. The need for this
project is to operate the water system more efficiently through the use of the elevated
storage rather than the pumping to provide the pressure in the district as it is presently
provided. As presented by staff during the deliberations for the recent 42 North
development, though providing more efficient operation, it will not be providing any
additional pressure to the district.

Non-Motorized Items

During the work on the FY2008-2013 CIP, the approach taken was to include only
“implementable” projects. As a result, most of the non-motorized needs were not
included in the plan due to the lack of available funding and the uncertainty of support at
the time of implementation. This year, the approach to the CIP was to charge the CIP
Category to identify all of the needs in the various asset areas - - regardless of funding
or outside support.

Therefore, there are many needs that are included in the CIP that are not funded at this
time including a great number of non-motorized projects. However, the presence of
these unfunded or unprogrammed needs are intended to draw the attention of the
broader city staff, policy makers and the public on the increasing number and scope of
needs of the city related to its infrastructure systems; and to perhaps serve as the
catalyst for discussions and efforts to find methods to fund and program these needs.

Public Involvement

The involvement of the public in the CIP process is a commitment of the City. However,
it is often difficult to generate interest and engagement by the community in such a
broad and technical endeavor. It has been recognized in the past, but even more so this
year with the collaborative team approach, that the greatest impact of the public on the
CIP actually occurs before and after the CIP process itself. Before the CIP is even
generated, the public is one of the main identifiers of needs; and after the CIP, the City
performance project specific public engagement processes to gather input and feedback
during the development of the details for the project implementation.

This is further outlined in a portion of the Section I document titled Public Involvement.
Page 2 of 2

S:\System Planning\CIP\FY2010-2015 CIP\CIP committee\WorkSessionCoverMemo.doc


CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

City of Ann Arbor, Michigan


FY2010-2015 Capital Improvements Plan

Section I

Capital Improvements Programming


CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

INTRODUCTION
The challenges to retain and/or expand City Definitions:
services in the midst of shrinking resources
and increasing costs has put pressure on Capital – Assets, material and/or property
City government to make its limited capital owned, operated and/or maintained by the City.
resources work more efficiently. City Capital Improvement – New or expanded
administration, elected and appointed facilities that are relatively large in size,
officials, and staff have taken several steps expensive, and permanent.
to make its capital expenditures more closely
reflect its long-range objectives. Capital Projects Budget (CPB) – The portion
of the City’s Annual Budget Document pertaining
to capital, including Capital Improvements over
One such step is the connection between the
$100,000 and other capital items from $2,500 to
City’s capital planning efforts with its $100,000.
budgeting process. The Ann Arbor Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) is a six-year plan Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) – A
of programmed projects for the rehabilitation, document that identifies needs associated with
replacement and expansion of the City’s the city’s infrastructure assets, and schedules
municipal infrastructure systems. The first projects to address those needs for a six-year
two years of this plan form the basis for the period based on prioritization of the needs, and
availability of financial and staffing resources.
City’s two-year Capital Projects Budget.
Approval of this budget allocates the funds to Capital Improvements Program - Multi-year
undertake the projects in this first two-year scheduling of public physical improvements
period in the plan, thus beginning the based on the City’s long-range master plan.
implementation of the CIP. Includes the CPB and the CIP.

Capital Improvements Plan Review


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
Subcommittee - A group consisting of council
members, planning commissioners and city staff
Projects considered to be capital who review and participated in the preparation of
improvements are large, expensive and the draft CIP.
relatively permanent in nature. They often
place a continuing financial burden on the Fiscal Year - From July 1 of any year until the
City (maintenance, operations, energy following June 30.
requirements, legal responsibilities, etc.). It Infrastructure - Basic facilities, services, and
is important to note that the capital installations needed for the functioning of the
improvements plan does not address all of community. These include the transportation
the capital expenditures for the City. systems, sanitary and water lines, parks, public
Instead, it represents only the major projects buildings, etc., and the land affiliated with those
in the foreseeable future. Items such as facilities.
vehicle purchases, small paving jobs,
Master Plan - A guide for making decisions
playground equipment, and items and
regarding the future physical development of the
services defined as operational budget City and the implementation of plans, policies,
items, which are financed out of current and programs. The master plan is made up of
revenues, are examined on a yearly basis planning documents, or elements, that provide
according to general operating budget recommendations for major geographic areas
procedures. and essential citywide facilities.

1
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

OVERVIEW
The CIP is the planning document that serves to consolidate the needs associated with the
City’s various infrastructure asset areas. These needs are gathered from findings of other City
master planning efforts, staff identification through the operations and maintenance of the City’s
facilities and systems and citizen service requests. The CIP provides a methodology for
addressing these needs by outlining the anticipated funding sources and schedules for the
projects necessary to achieve this, based on the priority of the need, and the availability of the
financial and staffing resources to perform these projects.

The City’s Capital Improvements Plan is a document that initiates and tracks high
expenditure capital projects, purchases and programs:

• Replacements/Improvements Greater than or Equal to (GTE) $100,000


• A “program” of projects whose total is GTE $100,000, comprising of
components of an infrastructure or capital system (e.g., Neighborhood Parks;
Annual Street Resurfacing Programs, etc.)
• Equipment Purchases GTE $100,000 and service life GTE 10 years
• Contingency/Unspecified Projects GTE $100,000
• Large component replacement parts GTE $100,000

The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) outlines a schedule of public expenditures over the
ensuing six-year period. The CIP provides for large, physical improvements that are permanent
in nature, including the basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of
the community. These include transportation systems, parks, utilities, municipal facilities and
other miscellaneous projects. The CIP provides a list of high value capital budget items or
projects for inclusion in the proposed Capital Budget of the City’s Annual Budget Document.

To qualify for inclusion in the CIP, a single project or a program of projects comprised of
components of a common infrastructure or capital system (e.g., neighborhood parks system;
Annual Street Resurfacing Program, etc.) must meet the following standards:

The project must:

• Be consistent with an adopted or anticipated component of the City master plan,


or a state or federal requirement, or a City Council approved policy; and

• Constitute permanent, physical or system improvements in excess of $100,000;


or significant equipment purchases in excess of $100,000 with a useful life of at
least 10 years; or a study of at least $100,000 that will lead to such projects; and

• Add to the value or capacity of the infrastructure of the City.

2
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

The CIP cannot address all of the capital expenditure needs for the City. As with other
communities throughout the region, state and nation, the City’s infrastructure systems have
needs that are growing at such a rate that they cannot be addressed within the span of a six-
year CIP. Some identified needs cannot be addressed because of limits on the annual amount
of available funding or staffing resources. Others cannot be addressed because of a lack of any
applicable funding source, or perhaps policy or legal restrictions. As a result, there are needs
whose solutions cannot be implemented within the CIP.

Rather than discard or ignore these items, they are included in this document as unprogrammed
needs. This information will provide guidance to City staff in examining the limitations and
restrictions currently in place and to seek alternative methods to achieve solutions to these
needs.

The Annual City Budget Document includes an Operations and Maintenance Budget and a
Capital Projects budget. Projects that are considered operational, maintenance or recurring are
excluded from the CIP but are captured in the O & M Budget portion of the Annual City Budget
Document. Capital expenditures not meeting the CIP criteria are included in the annual budget
as capital expenditures, however they are not included in the CIP.

The Annual Capital Projects Budget is the approval/appropriation document for costs
related to capital that are greater than, or equal to $2,500, including:

• Capital Items greater than, or equal to, $2,500 but less than $100,000
• Infrastructure Contingency/Unspecified Projects greater than, or equal to, $2,500 but
less than $100,000
• Component replacement program greater than, or equal to, $2,500
• Project Pre-design Study greater than, or equal to, $2,500
• CIP Items greater than $100,000 (minus general infrastructure studies)

The Annual Operations and Maintenance Budget is the approval/appropriation document


for routine, day-to-day costs, such as:

• Operational Costs
• Maintenance Costs
• General Infrastructure Studies
• Capital Equipment less than $2,500
• Infrastructure Contingency/Unspecified Projects less than $2,500
• Component Replacements less than $2,500

Approval of the CIP by the City Council does not mean that the Council grants final approval of
all the projects contained in the plan. Rather, by approving the CIP Council acknowledges that
they agree that these projects represent a reasonable interpretation of the upcoming needs for
the City, with the projects contained in the first two years of the plan being the basis for the
City’s next Capital Projects Budget. The City’s Capital Improvements Program process is
described in the Program Summary section of this document.

3
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

The State of Michigan provides for the development and use of a capital improvements plan in
the Municipal Planning Act (Section 125.3865, Act 33 of the Public Acts of 2008).

To further the desirable future development of the local unit of government under the master plan,
a planning commission, after adoption of a master plan, shall annually prepare a capital
improvements program of public structures and improvements, unless the planning commission is
exempted from this requirement by charter or otherwise. If the planning commission is exempted,
the legislative body either shall prepare and adopt a capital improvements program, separate
from or as a part of the annual budget, or shall delegate the preparation of the capital
improvements program to the chief elected official or a nonelected administrative official, subject
to final approval by the legislative body. The capital improvements program shall show those
public structures and improvements, in the general order of their priority, that in the commission's
judgment will be needed or desirable and can be undertaken within the ensuing 6-year period.
The capital improvements program shall be based upon the requirements of the local unit of
government for all types of public structures and improvements. Consequently, each agency or
department of the local unit of government with authority for public structures or improvements
shall upon request furnish the planning commission with lists, plans, and estimates of time and
cost of those public structures and improvements.

In addition, the Ann Arbor City Code (Chapter 8, Section 1:185) reinforces this responsibility.

For the purpose of furthering the desirable future development of the city, the Planning
Commission shall annually prepare a program of public structures and improvements for the
ensuing 6 years, which program shall show those public structures and improvements, in the
general order of their priority, which in the commission's judgment will be needed or desirable
within the 6-year period.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN


AND THE CITY’S ANNUAL BUDGET

The City’s Annual Budget itemizes and appropriates the funds needed for all municipal
purposes during the next two fiscal years, and is comprised of two separate budgets - - the
Operating Budget and the Capital Projects Budget. The Operating Budget includes the day-to-
day operational expenses of the City, such as salaries, supplies and expenses for programmatic
activities. The Capital Projects Budget includes the anticipated capital project costs for the next
two fiscal years. The first two years of projects contained in the Capital Improvements Plan
become the basis for formulating the Capital Projects Budget.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN


AND THE CITY’S PLANNING PROCESS

Comprehensive physical planning influences the programming of capital improvements. As


noted above, state law reinforces that link by requiring that the planning commission annually
prepare a capital improvements plan to implement the community’s master plan.

The City provides a strengthened connection with its comprehensive planning in the form of
shorter-range implementation strategies. The Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, the
Downtown Plan, the Transportation Plan, the Central Area Plan and the West Area Plan all
provide implementation recommendations that link the future vision of the community to
relatively short-term actions.

4
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

The first recommended program policy in the CIP recognizes the importance of the link between
the Capital Improvements Plan and implementation of the master plan. In bringing most, if not
all, of the decision makers together into the planning process, and by using the Capital
Improvements Program process to reinforce the desired future land use patterns, the City’s
physical future can be better shaped.

THE BENEFITS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING

Over time, public facilities need major repair, replacement or expansion. Maintaining and
upgrading a community’s capital assets requires significant financial investment. This
investment must be weighed against other community needs and analyzed in light of community
goals. The City of Ann Arbor, like many cities, is under pressure to make efficient use of capital
resources and must make difficult choices. There are more needs than can be satisfied at
once, and the selection of one investment over another may shape the development of the City
for years to come.

Capital improvements programming is a valuable tool to ensure that choices are made wisely.
The City’s development goals are implemented, in part, by the careful provision of capital
facilities. The benefits of this systematic approach to planning capital projects include the
following:

• Focuses attention on community goals, needs, and capabilities.

Through capital improvements programming, capital projects can be brought into line with
the City’s long-range plans by balancing identified needs with financial capacities.
Considered individually, a new park, water system improvements, and street widening may
be great ideas. But each project may look quite different when, in the course of the Capital
Improvements Program process, it is forced to compete directly with other projects for
limited funds.

• Optimizes use of the taxpayer’s dollar.

The capital improvements program helps the City Council and City Administrator make
sound annual budget decisions. Careful planning of capital improvements helps prevent
costly mistakes. In addition, capital planning allows the City to save money in several other
ways. For example, investors in municipal bonds tend to look more favorably on
communities that have a Capital Improvements Program; if bond financing is selected for a
capital improvement project, the City may realize significant savings on interest.

• Guides future growth and development.

The location and capacity of capital improvements shape the growth and redevelopment of
the City. City decision makers can use the Capital Improvements Program to develop well
thought-out policies to guide future land use and economic development.

5
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

• Encourages efficient government.

Participatory efforts of multiple City service units in the planning and coordination of capital
improvements programming reduces scheduling conflicts and ensures that high priority
needs are addressed before those of a lower priority. In addition, the Capital Improvements
Program can be used to promote innovative management techniques and improve
governmental efficiency and effectiveness.

• Improves the basis for intergovernmental and regional cooperation.

Capital improvements programming offers public officials of all governmental units (City of
Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Public School District, Ann Arbor Transportation
Authority, Downtown Development Authority, etc.) an opportunity to plan the location, timing,
and financing of improvements in the interest of the community as a whole.

• Maintains a sound and stable financial program.

Having to make large or frequent unplanned expenditures can endanger the financial well-
being of the City. Sharp changes in the tax structure or bonded indebtedness may be
avoided when construction projects are planned in advance and scheduled at intervals over
a number of years. When there is ample time for planning, the most economical means of
financing each project can be selected in advance. Furthermore, a Capital Improvements
Program can help the City avoid commitments and debts that would prevent the initiation of
other important projects at a later date.

• Enhances opportunities for participation in federal or state grant programs.

Preparing a CIP improves the City’s chance of obtaining aid through federal and state
programs that provide funds for planning, construction and financing of capital
improvements. The CIP is considered a “public works shelf” that contains projects that can
be started quickly by having construction, or bid, documents ready should any grant funds
become available.

6
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The City is committed to include the public in its CIP preparation. The current CIP is
available in hardcopy format at the Guy C. Larcom Municipal Building, as well electronically
on the City’s website via the Systems Planning Unit homepage. As the plan is prepared,
draft information is posted on the website for review by the public, as well as contact
information for providing comments and feedback. Additionally, the City Planning
Commission reviews the CIP and holds a public hearing to obtain input on the plan.

Though this public involvement is sought for the CIP process itself, the public’s input is
greater and has more impact both before and after the actual CIP process.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT BEFORE THE CIP PROCESS

The City undertakes planning efforts to guide City staff and policy makers in making
decisions about the physical development of the City. Many of these planning projects
result in documents that are reviewed and adopted by the City Planning Commission as
elements of the City’s Master Plan.

Plans currently adopted by the City Planning Commission as elements of


the City’s Master Plan:

Citywide Plans

• Transportation Plan Update


• Bicycle Plan
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan
• Natural Features Master Plan
• Non-Motorized Transportation Plan

Geographic Area Plans

• South Area Plan, including the Briarwood Subarea Plan


• Central Area Plan
• Ann Arbor Downtown Plan
• Northeast Area Plan
• Northeast Area Transportation Plan
• West Area Plan, including the Miller/Maple/Newport Traffic and
Circulation Study

7
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

Other planning projects are focused on infrastructure and environmental systems. Though
these plans are more technical in nature, they are very important undertakings in their own
right, as they also guide future decisions and recommendations by the City.

Examples of plans and studies performed regarding City infrastructure


and environmental systems:

• Water Treatment Facilities and Water Resources Master Plan


• Downtown Development Strategies Project
• Flood Mitigation Plan
• Sanitary Sewer Overflow Study
• Millers Creek Watershed Improvement Plan

These master plans, technical plans and studies are developed using a variety of public
involvement and/or engagement opportunities, such as: public meetings; open houses;
workshops; citizen/public advisory committees; steering committees; and formal public
hearings by City Planning Commission and/or City Council. In addition, direct feedback and
comment from citizens and the public is accepted during these projects and is often directly
solicited by City staff and consultants involved in the projects.

Often during these public involvement and engagement opportunities, needs related to the
City’s capital infrastructure systems are identified and raised by the public. These needs are
documented, reviewed and/or incorporated into the results of the planning and study
projects. These documented needs are reviewed by the CIP Category Teams to determine
if they remain as outstanding needs that should be addressed in the City’s CIP.

In addition, individual citizens and members of the community contact the City to request
particular improvements, enhancements or extensions of public services and systems to
meet their needs. These inquiries and requests are gathered by City staff and are also
reviewed by the CIP Category Teams as they prepare the CIP.

The process performed by the CIP Category Teams is described in more detail in the
Program Summary later in this Section I of the CIP document.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AFTER THE CIP PROCESS

Some of the projects included in the CIP are studies and planning efforts such as those
described above, and will incorporate public involvement as an integral part of those
projects. The majority of the projects that are identified for implementation in the CIP are
“traditional” municipal public works projects - - water main replacements, road
reconstructions, park development, government buildings and structures for example.

Many of these “traditional” projects also include public involvement very early in their
process. As a result of new regulations, shifting and growing needs as the City’s systems
age, and concerns and awareness by the community grow, as well as the fact that more and
more projects are needed in established, mature areas of the community, projects are

8
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

becoming more complex than ever before. As a result, the necessity to involve and engage
the public even during the study and design at the project stage is recognized by the City.

This is being done using the methods discussed earlier, such as public meetings and
workshops, stakeholder meetings and open houses which take place as part of the actual
design process for the project. The City involves the citizens, business owners and
merchants, and other stakeholders in these processes. As a result, questions, concerns
and suggestions by the public can be reviewed and addressed in a much more efficient and
cost effective manner than dealing with problems and issues encountered during the
construction of the project.

Once underway, all City projects provide information that is available for the public and
which is distributed to those directly affected by the project. These efforts may involve
informative items such as letters, newsletters and webpage articles and announcements
regarding the project, and are made in advance and during the actual construction of the
project.

9
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

PROGRAM SUMMARY
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROCESS
The capital improvements program is a distinct element of the annual budget process that flows
through City government in separate, but linked channels. The CIP process occurs earlier than
the budget process, as the CIP will be used in developing the capital projects portion of the
annual budget.

10
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

The City of Ann Arbor uses a traditional needs-driven approach to its capital improvements
programming process, including the development of its CIP. The process for developing the
CIP generally involved the following steps.

Step 1: Organize the Process

Staff members from the Public Services, Community Services and Financial Services Areas
whose work duties, responsibilities and/or expertise are impacted by or affect capital
improvement projects are identified as members of the CIP Team. Team members are
assigned to any of fourteen category teams where there background and experience will be
beneficial. These teams include:

• City Owned Buildings • Other Transportation


• Parks and Recreation • Parking Facilities
• Solid Waste • Street Construction
• Airport • Sanitary System
• Alternative Transportation • Stormwater Management
• Bridges • Water System
• New Street Development • Financial

These category teams are made up of staff with diverse perspectives, and include: operations
and maintenance staff; engineers and project managers; program planners and coordinators;
urban planners; GIS specialists; and, service unit managers.

Step 2: Identify Needs

Each CIP Category Team identifies the needs within, or affected by its particular asset area.
These needs are identified by reviewing the findings of the City’s various master plans,
maintenance records and experiences of staff, and citizen requests submitted since the last CIP
process. In addition, items may have been eliminated from consideration if it was determined
that they pose a serious question of community need, adequate planning, or proper timing.

Step 3: Identify Key Scope Items

Next, each CIP Category Team identifies key scope items that are likely to influence the cost
and/or schedule requirements of the project to address the needs. These items may include:
impacts to natural features; changes to the character of an area; locations within established
boundaries such as historic districts, DDA, county drain districts; impacts on other utility
infrastructure systems or their operations; special assessment or other outside funding
component; need to obtain right-of-way or easement area; or, require a public engagement
process.

There are two critical “tools” utilized in this process. One is the utilization of the City’s
geographic information system (GIS), which contains an inventory and status or condition of
many of the key items listed above. By identifying the location of a particular need, the
presence or absence of many key items can be determined.

11
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

The other tool, though not as technical as the GIS, but is nonetheless as critical, if not more so -
- the broad perspective of the Category Team members. By leveraging the expertise of the
various staff involved with, or affected by, the operations and improvement of a particular asset
area, many critical scope items can be factored into the planning and programming of a project
to address a particular need.

If these scope items are not taken into account as part of the CIP process, the implementation
of many projects is likely to encounter delays and cost overruns as these items are discovered
during the actual project study and design activities.

Step 4: Prioritize Needs

The key task for the CIP Category Teams is to evaluate and prioritize the many identified needs.
This is a critical component of the CIP process. Project selection and scheduling is constrained
by the amount of funding anticipated to be available for capital projects. Within the limited
budget, is the rehabilitation of an aging component at the water treatment plant, or the
replacement of a failing water distribution main, or the modification of a treatment process for
greater efficiency of greater importance? Shrinking funds and rising costs incurred in
maintaining and rehabilitating deteriorating infrastructure make the process of selecting the
most vital capital projects even more crucial and difficult. The merits of each need must be
judged against the policies and criteria of the CIP process and the goals of each component of
the master plan, as well as against the other competing needs in that particular asset category.

City Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers, as well as City staff, have expressed a
desire to utilize a more detailed, yet clear method of prioritizing projects, than has been used in
previous CIP efforts. The use of a prioritization model tool has been piloted by three of the CIP
Category Teams, one from each major CIP asset area - - Parks and Recreation (Municipal
Facilities Area), Bridges (Transportation Area) and Water System (Utilities Area) - - to determine
if this tool meets these objectives. This prioritization model employs the following procedure:

1. Determine the decision criteria to be used in the prioritization analysis

12
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

2. Assign relative weights to the criteria from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most important
criteria and the others weighted relative to the most important

3. Determine performance measures from 0 to 10 for each criteria

4. Score each need/project for each criteria

13
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

5. Run the model

The results of the prioritization model express the overall, relative benefit of each need/project
compared to the others in that particular category. These results are reviewed to confirm that
the criteria, weighting and scoring have not produced improper results. If it is determined by the
team that some aspect of the results are inappropriate, the criteria, weighting and/or scoring
reviewed and perhaps adjusted and the model re-run. The purpose of this iterative process is to
better calibrate the model, but care must be taken to not adjust the model to produce “desired”
results.

The other CIP Category Teams utilized the existing priority classifications but again employed a
collaborative process utilizing the varied perspectives on the to arrive at a prioritization of each
need relative to the other category needs. The following classification system was used to
prioritize these needs:

• PRIORITY 1 - URGENT
Urgent, high-priority projects that should be done if at all possible. These include projects
that are required to comply with a federal or state requirement; projects that would address
an emergency, or remedy a condition dangerous to public health, welfare, and safety;
projects that would provide facilities for a critically needed community program; projects
needed to correct an inequitable distribution of public improvements in the past; and projects
vital to the economic stability of the City. A special effort is made to find sufficient funding
for all of the projects in this group.

14
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

• PRIORITY 2 - IMPORTANT
High-priority projects that should be done as funding becomes available. These include
projects that would benefit the community; and projects whose validity of planning and
validity of timing have been established.

• PRIORITY 3 - DESIRABLE
Worthwhile projects to be considered if funding is available. These are projects that are
adequately planned, but not absolutely required, and should be deferred to a subsequent
year if budget reductions are necessary.

This step was conducted without consideration of project cost or availability of funding or
staffing resources.

Step 6: Schedule Projects

During Step 5, CIP Category Team members were identified for each need to provide
supporting data for proposed projects to address the need. An item of major importance is the
initial estimate of the project costs and proposed funding source(s) for those costs. The team
members utilize a CIP database, and its capacity of linking to the City’s financial system
allowing consistent application of funding information in the CIP. A detailed Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) Preparation Manual is used to assist the staff in their updating and
submittal of new projects for the CIP. Additionally, the team members enter an initial proposed
schedule for the project based on their understanding of the need and its relative priority within
its asset category.

Following this data input, the CIP Category Teams meet with the Financial Team to review the
overall, initially proposed schedule of projects. The projects are grouped by the fiscal year in
which funding is proposed. The team then evaluates each fiscal year grouping and adjusts
project schedules until an overall schedule of projects for the category is established that
achieves:
• Higher priority needs are being addressed before lower priority needs
• Available funding limits are not exceeded
• Staffing resources are anticipated to have capacity to perform the projects

The City Council ultimately approves the assumptions, criteria, policies, and recommendations
of the CIP Team and City Planning Commission by approving the CIP. Depending on the policy
orientation, modifications are expected throughout the process. This is considered an essential
part of the procedure, placing the burden on those who dissent to assess the policies underlying
the recommendations and to advocate their differences, resulting in the necessary evolution of
the entire capital planning process.

It is inevitable that the number of projects required to address all of the city’s infrastructure
needs will exceed the available funding. In the endeavor to provide better service to the
community, capital projects are proposed at times which, unfortunately, are moved to a later
date when funding is available, or are determined to be unfunded or unprogrammed. This
process should not discourage staff from continuing to submit identified needs, but should
develop into a mechanism to help in the effort to uncover alternate sources of funding and see
that higher-priority projects get implemented.

15
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

Step 7: Prepare, Adopt and Approve the CIP

As the process continues, and increasingly detailed information emerges, projects may be
added, altered, or abandoned. Eventually, the CIP Team arrives at a final list of projects that is
submitted to the City Planning Commission for review.

The Planning Commission evaluates the CIP package in light of additional information, holds a
public hearing, and makes final programming decisions before adopting the CIP and sending it
on to City Council. Council approves the CIP after its review. Approval is not a commitment to
finance the approved projects, but is a statement of policy regarding the City’s approach to
meeting its future capital needs. However, the first two years of the CIP do form the initial basis
for the Capital Projects Budget portion of the City’s Annual Budget.

16
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

PROGRAM FUNDING
Because capital improvement projects involve the outlay of substantial funds, numerous
sources are necessary to provide financing over the life of the project. Most capital funding
sources are earmarked for specific purposes and cannot be transferred from one capital
program to another. For instance, funds raised by the City by the Park Maintenance and Repair
millage must be used for the purposes that were stated when the voters approved the millage.
The CIP has to be prepared with some projections as to the amount of money to be available.
The following is a summary of the funding sources for projects included in the capital
improvements program.

ENTERPRISE (RESERVE) FUNDS

In enterprise financing, funds are accumulated in advance for capital requirements. Enterprise
funds not only pay for capital improvements, but also for the day-to-day operations of city
services and the debt payment on revenue bonds. The City can set levels for capital projects;
however, increases in capital expenditures for water mains, for example, could result in
increased rates. Enterprise fund dollars can only be used on projects related to the fund.

BONDS

When the City sells bonds, purchasers are, in effect, lending the City money. The money is
repaid, with interest, from taxes or fees over the years. The logic behind issuing bonds (or
“floating a bond issue”) for capital projects is that the citizens who benefit from the capital
improvements over a period of time should help the City pay for them. The City issues bonds in
two forms:

General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds

Perhaps the most flexible of all capital funding sources, G.O. bonds can be used for the
design or construction of any capital project. These bonds are financed through property
taxes. In financing through this method, the taxing power of the City is pledged to pay
interest and principal to retire the debt. Voter approval is required if the city wants to
increase the taxes that it levies and the amount is included in the City’s state-imposed
debt limits. To minimize the need for property tax increases, the City makes every effort
to coordinate new bond issues with the retirement of previous bonds. G.O. Bonds are
authorized by a variety of state statutes.

Revenue Bonds

Revenue bonds are sold for projects that produce revenues, such as water and sewer
system projects. Revenue bonds depend on user charges and other project-related
income to cover their costs. Unlike G.O. bonds, revenue bonds are not included in the
City’s state-imposed debt limits because the full faith and credit of the City back them.
Revenue bonds are authorized by Public Act of 1933, the Revenue Bond Act.

17
CITY OF ANN ARBOR ♦ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ♦ FY2010-2015

WEIGHT AND GAS TAX

Based on a formula set by the State of Michigan, the City of Ann Arbor receives a portion of the
tax placed on motor fuel and highway usage in the state. The restrictions placed on the
expenditure of these funds insure that they will be spent on transportation-related projects or
operations and services.

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF)

TIF is a municipal financing tool that can be used to renovate or redevelop declining areas while
improving their tax base. TIF applies the increase in various state and local taxes that result
from a redevelopment project to pay for project-related public improvements. For purposes of
financing activities within the Ann Arbor downtown district, the Downtown Development
Authority adopted a 30-year TIF plan in 1982. Public Act 281 of 1986, the Local Development
Finance Authority Act and Public Act 450 of 1980, the Tax Increment Financing Act authorizes
TIF. With the passage of Proposal A in 1994 limiting the capacity to capture certain taxes, the
ability to utilize this financing tool has been severely restricted.

MILLAGES

The property tax is one of the most important sources of City revenue. The property tax rate is
stated in mills (one dollar per $1,000 of valuation). This rate is applied to a property’s net value,
following the application of all exemptions and a 50% equalization ratio. Millages are voter-
approved taxes that are specifically earmarked for a particular purpose. The City is authorized
to utilize millages under Public Act 279 of 1909, the Home Rule Cities Act.

FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS

The federal and state governments make funds available to cities through numerous grants and
aid programs. Some funds are tied directly to a specific program. The City has discretion
(within certain guidelines) over the expenditure of others. For the most part, the City has no
direct control over the amount of money received under these programs.

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS

Capital improvements that benefit particular properties, rather than the community as a whole,
may be financed more equitably by special assessment: that is, by those who directly benefit.
Local improvements often financed by this method include new street improvements (including
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, etc.), sanitary and storm sewers, and water mains.

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Sometimes capital improvements are required to serve new development. Where funding is not
available for the City to construct the improvements, developers may agree to voluntarily
contribute their share or to install the facilities themselves so the development can go ahead.

18
CIP KICK-OFF
FY2010 – 2015 CIP • The CIP’s role in:
• Master Planning
Kick-Off Presentation • Capital Budgeting
• Asset Management
• Overview of CIP process
• “Adjusted” Team Approach
City Planning Commission • Available Tools
• Schedule/Milestones
September 9, 2008
• Questions

CIP’s Role In: Master Planning CIP’s Role In: Capital Budgeting
• Michigan Planning Enabling Act (PA 33 of 2008) • Previously project budgets approved
Sec. 65. (1) “To further the desirable future development of the local individually by Council
unit of government under the master plan, a planning commission,
after adoption of a master plan, shall annually prepare a capital
• No way to identify current, total capital budget
improvements program of public structures and improvements...The • Now projects in first 2 years of CIP become
capital improvements program shall show those public structures and
improvements, in the general order of their priority that in the basis for City’s 2-year capital projects budget
commission’s judgment will be needed or desirable and can be • Budget for fund, with listed projects approved - -
undertaken within the ensuing 6-year period.
no need to go back to Council individually

CIP’s Role In: Asset Management CIP’s Role In: Asset Management
When?
What?

?
How much?

1
CIP’s Role In: Asset Management Overview of CIP Process
• Determine Needs
• Determine Requirements to Address Needs
• Prioritize Projects
• Look For Opportunities To Combine Or
Coordinate Projects
• Schedule Projects

“Adjusted” Team Approach “Adjusted” Team Approach


Project
Manager Project Category
Small, Project Category Team
“mono-view” Team •Multi-Discipline
•Varied Perspectives
group •Multi-Discipline
Project •Varied Perspectives
Manager
CIP CIP

Small, Project Category


Project Category
Project “mono-view” Team Team
Manager group •Multi-Discipline •Multi-Discipline
•Varied Perspectives •Varied Perspectives
Citizen
Request

“Adjusted” Team Approach Available Tools


For example, the Street Construction Team will • City’s GIS
include: • Current CIP Document
• Field Operations • Project Management
• Manager • Chief Engineer
• CIP Database
• Assistant Manager • Project Managers (3) • Prioritization Model
• Street Supervisor • Systems Planning (to be piloted)
• Forestry Supervisor • Transp. Program Manager
• Operations Specialist • UFNR Program Manager • Team Charter
• Engineer • Water Quality Manager Document
• DDA

2
Schedule/Milestones Schedule/Milestones
• September 8th: Kick-Off Session • November 7th: Initial draft CIP due to Service Area
Administrators for review
• September 9th: Presentation to Planning Commission
• Early November: Meet with CPC’s CIP Review
• September 26th: Category needs compiled Subcommittee re: Utility and Corridor Projects
• October 15th: Project prioritization completed • Mid-November: Meet with CPC’s CIP Review
• Mid-October: Meet with CPC’s CIP Review Subcommittee re: Transportation Projects
Subcommittee re: Municipal Facilities Projects • Mid-November: Meet with SAA’s to review draft
CIP

Schedule/Milestones
• December 16th: Presentation, public hearing and Questions?
proposed adoption for CIP at Planning Commission
• January 19th: Resolution to City Council for approval
of FY2010-2015 CIP Thanks for your time and attention

Looking forward to working with you


on the CIP!

CIP and Asset Management

3
Asset Management and CIP
• Asset management isn’t a new concept...
We’re trying to improve on it

4
FY2010-2015 SANITARY SYSTEM PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Facilities Renovation (2 of 6) Urgent $5,800,000 Facilities Renovation (3 of 6) Urgent $24,900,000
North Seventh Sanitary Sewer (1 of 2) Urgent $32,000 North Seventh Sanitary Sewer (2 of 2) Urgent $353,000
Northside Sanitary Submain (Phase II) (1 of 2) Urgent $475,000 Residuals Handling Improvements (3 of 3) Urgent $19,800,000
Residuals Handling Improvements (2 of 3) Urgent $26,200,000 Northside Sanitary Submain (Phase II) (2 of 2) Urgent $975,000
Orchard and Abbott Crosslots Sanitary Sewer Replacement Urgent $750,000 Calvin Street Sanitary Sewer (1 of 2) Important $115,000
Pauline Sanitary Replacement (Teflon Liz Estimate, currently SWAG) Urgent $550,000 Dexter Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement (1 of 2) Important $60,000
First Street Sanitary Replacement Urgent $400,000 Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (3 of 7) Important $1,500,000
Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (2 of 7) Important $250,000 Footing Drain Disconnection Project - 2006 (Priority 2A) (3 of 3) Important $200,000
Footing Drain Disconnection Project - 2006 (Priority 2A) (2 of 3) Important $1,450,000 Southside Interceptor Rehabilitation (3 of 5) Important $650,000
Geddes Sanitary Sewer (2651 to 3053) (1 of 2) Important $200,000 Austin Sanitary Sewer Outlet (1 of 2) Important $125,000
North Main Submain Relief Sanitary Sewer - AARR to M-14 (2 of 2) Important $2,500,000 Geddes Sanitary Sewer (2651 to 3053) (2 of 2) Important $800,000
Southside Interceptor Rehabilitation (2 of 5) Important $200,000 Miller Ave/Allen Creek Crosing Relief (1 of 2) Important $100,000
Valhalla Sanitary Sewer Service Extension (2 of 2) Important $875,000 2780 Packard Sanitary Extension Important
Manhole Rehabilitation/Replacement Project Important $250,000 Bluett Sanitary Sewer Service Extension (1 of 2) Desirable $60,000
WWTP Bridge Important $600,000 Springbrook Sanitary Sewer Extension (1 of 2) Desirable $20,000
North Fifth Ave. Sanitary Lead Removals from Storm Sewer (1 of 2) Desirable $20,000 Wagner Road Sanitary Sewer - South Desirable $475,000
North Fifth Ave. Sanitary Lead Removals from Storm Sewer (2 of 2) Desirable $200,000 Dover Place/Riverview Sanitary Desirable $330,000
Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (2 of 7) U of M Share Important $750,000 Woodland Drive Sanitary Extension Desirable
TOTAL $41,502,000 Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (3 of 7) U of M Share Important $750,000
TOTAL $51,213,000

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Facilities Renovation (4 of 6) Urgent $29,600,000 Facilities Renovation (5 of 6) Urgent $23,200,000
Dexter Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement (2 of 2) Important $240,000 Calvin Street Sanitary Sewer (2 of 2) Important $385,000
Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (4 of 7) Important $2,500,000 Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (5 of 7) Important $2,500,000
Southside Interceptor Rehabilitation (4 of 5) Important $1,200,000 Southside Interceptor Rehabilitation (5 of 5) Important $1,100,000
Austin Sanitary Sewer Outlet (2 of 2) Important $600,000 Miller West Park Sanitary - Low Level (1 of 2) Desirable $100,000
Miller Ave/Allen Creek Crosing Relief (2 of 2) Important $550,000 High Level Relief Sewer (2 of 2) Desirable $850,000
South Boulevard Lift Station Elimination & Gravity Sewer Desirable $500,000 Liberty-Washington Relief (Phase I) Desirable $475,000
Springbrook Sanitary Sewer Extension (2 of 2) Desirable $120,000 Ridgemor-Liberty Sanitary Sewer Desirable $150,000
High Level Relief Sewer (1 of 2) Desirable $100,000 TOTAL $28,760,000
Bluett Sanitary Sewer Service Extension (2 of 2) Desirable $80,000
TOTAL $35,490,000

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Facilities Renovation (6 of 6) Urgent $8,000,000 Michigan Stadium Sanitary Sewer Reroute Desirable $260,000
Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (6 of 7) Important $2,500,000 North Main Submain Relief Sanitary Sewer - Bird Rd past Warrington (2 of 2) Desirable $1,200,000
Southside Interceptor (6 of 6) Important $1,550,000 Liberty-Washington Relief (Phase II) (2 of 2) Desirable $305,000
Miller West Park Sanitary - Low Level (2 of 2) Desirable $200,000 Huron West Park (Phase II) (2 of 2) Desirable $895,000
Newport/Warrington Sanitary Sewer Desirable $650,000 Pittsfield Valley Trunkline Relief Sewer (2 of 2) Desirable $1,500,000
North Main Submain Relief Sanitary Sewer - Bird Rd past Warrington (1 of 2) Desirable $100,000 Huron West Park (Phase III) (1 of 2) Desirable $280,000
Swift Street Sanitary Sewer Desirable $110,000 Pittsfield Valley Submain Relief (1 of 2) Desirable $135,000
Liberty-Washington Relief (Phase II) (1 of 2) Desirable $155,000 Footing Drain Disconnection Project (Long Term) (7 of 7) $47,500,000
2857 Packard Sanitary Extension Desirable
Huron West Park (Phase II) (1 of 2) Desirable $330,000 TOTAL $52,075,000
Pittsfield Valley Trunkline Relief Sewer (1 of 2) Desirable $500,000
TOTAL $14,095,000
FY2010-2015 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
N. Fifth Ave Sanitary Lead Removals Urgent $220,000 Storm/Sanitary Conflict Removals Urgent $500,000
Newport Culvert Crossing Urgent $525,000 W. Stadium Reconstruction (7th to Kipke) Urgent $470,000
Street & Park Tree Inventory (part 2) Urgent $25,000 Allen Creek Greenway Important $100,000
W. Stadium Reconstruction (Pauline to 7th) Urgent $845,000 Dexter Ave - Huron to Fairview (Part 1) Important $40,000
West Park Fairgrounds Drain Improvements Urgent $6,750,000 Dexter Stormwater Impr. Fairview to Maple (Part 1) Important $20,000
Demo Rain Gardens Important $100,000 Malletts Creek In-System Storage (Part 3) Important $800,000
Malletts Creek In-System Storage (Part 2) Important $800,000 Miller Ave (Part 2) Important $225,000
McKinley/White/Arch St. Vault Abandonment Important $250,000 Springwater Sub (Part 1) Important $490,000
Miller Ave Storm Improvements (Part 1) Important $30,000 Storm Asset ID/GIS Conv. Model (Part 1) Important $650,000
Pioneer H.S. Important $4,211,240 Street Tree Replanting Important $300,000
Street Tree Replanting Important $300,000 West Park Master Plan Storm Improvements Important $250,000
Urban Forest Mgt. Plan Important $25,000 Floodway Improvement Grant Match Desirable $100,000
West Madison Storm Sewer Important $500,000 TOTAL $3,945,000
West Park Master Plan Storm Improvements Important $50,000
215 & 219 Kingsley Desirable $95,000
Barton Pond WQ Monitoring Desirable $60,000
Farmer's Market Desirable $572,020
TOTAL $15,358,260

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Dexter Ave - Huron to Fairview (Part 2) Important $400,000 Dexter Stormwater Impr. Fairview to Maple (Part 3) Important $297,000
Dexter Stormwater Impr. Fairview to Maple (Part 2) Important $15,000 Miller Ave (Part 4) Important $108,000
Geddes Avenue Storm Sewer Important $300,000 Springwater Sub (Part 3) Important $345,000
Marlborough Storm Sewer Replacement Important $150,000 Street Tree Replanting Important $300,000
Miller Ave (Part 3) Important $225,000 Awixa Outlet Repair (Part 2) Desirable $275,000
Springwater Sub (Part 2) Important $345,000 Evergreen Sub (Part 2) Desirable $50,000
Storm Asset ID/GIS Conv. Model (Part 2) Important $400,000 Floodway Improvement Grant Match Desirable $100,000
Street Tree Replanting Important $300,000 Millers Creek Drainage District Creation (Part 2) Desirable $500,000
West Park Master Plan Storm Improvements Important $250,000 TOTAL $1,975,000
Awixa Outlet Repair (Part 1) Desirable $100,000
Evergreen Sub (Part 1) Desirable $50,000
Floodway Improvement Grant Match Desirable $100,000
Millers Creek Drainage District Creation (Part 1) Desirable $500,000
Project #51 from Flood Mitigation Plan Desirable $0
TOTAL $3,135,000

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Springwater Sub (Part 4) Important $345,000 Allen Creek Re-study (Part 1) Desirable $175,000
Eberwhite Woods Drain Study Desirable $200,000 Allen Creek Re-study (Part 2) Desirable $75,000
Floodway Improvement Grant Match Desirable $100,000 Floodway Improvement Grant Match Desirable $100,000
Michigan Stadium Storm Re-route Desirable $942,000 HPW Median Bio-Swales (Part 1) Desirable $322,500
Stone School Storm Sewer Desirable $300,000 HPW Median Bio-Swales (Part 2) Desirable $322,500
TOTAL $1,887,000 South State Storm Outlet @ I-94 Desirable $200,000
Veteren's Memorial Park Water Quality Impr. Desirable $2,100,000
TOTAL $3,295,000
FY2010-2015 WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Arbor Oaks Subdivision Water Mains Replacement Urgent $1,500,000 Barton Electrical Upgrades (2 of 2) Urgent $500,000
Argo Dam Toe Drain Repair Urgent $300,000 Raw Water Main (30") Upgrade (Seventh Easterly) Urgent $1,530,000
Barton Pond Early Warning System Important $300,000 Replace Filter Effluent Turbidimeters Urgent $200,000
Barton Electrical Upgrades (1 of 2) Urgent $100,000 Calvin Street Water Extension (1 of 2) Important $85,000
Distribution System Monitoring & Security Urgent $1,700,000 Collingwood Water Quality Improvements Important $100,000
Nob Hill Water Main Replacements Urgent $240,000 Dexter Avenue Water Main Replacment Important $600,000
Replace Limeslakers at WTP Urgent $2,750,000 Dover Court Water Main Replacement Important $97,000
Structural Repair & Painting Basin #4 & 35 at WTP Urgent $500,000 Ozone Residual Monitor Replacement Important $150,000
Water Treatment Plan Residuals Disposal Study Urgent $250,000 Repair Valves Behind Ozone Building Important $250,000
Catherine Street 16" Water Main Important $500,000 South Fifth Avenue Water Main Replacment Important $220,000
Vaughn Street Water Main Important $245,000 Stadium Boulevard Water Main Replacement (Seventh to Kipke) Important $310,000
Washtenaw Water Main Replacement Important $1,470,000 Taylor Street Water Main Important $420,000
West Stadium Water Main Replacement (Pauline to Seventh) Important $675,000 Valhalla Drive Water Main Important $325,000
Water Distribution System Master Plan - Asset Management Desirable $500,000 Water Laboratory Information Management System Important $200,000
TOTAL $11,030,000 Traver Road PRV Desirable $100,000
TOTAL $5,087,000
Project Name (Non-Water Fund)
Barton Dam Concrete Repairs (Fund 0010) Urgent $400,000 Project Name (Non-Water Fund)
Clark Road Water Main Extension ( Non-City Funding) Urgent $300,000 West High Service Upgrade ( Non-City Funding) Urgent $3,450,000
TOTAL $700,000 TOTAL $3,450,000

TOTAL NEED $8,537,000


TOTAL NEED $11,730,000

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Replace Steere Farm Well Pump Engines Urgent $1,400,000 Elevated Storage Tank (West High Service District) Urgent $225,000
Devonshire/Belmont/Londonderry Water Quality Improvements Important $550,000 Replace Section of Well Transmission Pipe from Steere Farm (1 of 3) Urgent $150,000
Downtown Valve Insertion/Replacements (1 of 2) Important $150,000 Argo Dam - Paint Structural Steel Important $250,000
Leak Detection Survey Important $350,000 Calvin Street Water Main Extension (1 of 2) Important $365,000
Russet, Russell & Redeemer Important $1,400,000 Downtown Valve Insertion/Replacements (2 of 2) Important $250,000
South Boulevard Water Main Important $160,000 Geddes & Southeast District Control Valve Important $200,000
Structural Repairs Project - Phase 2 Important $1,750,000 Harbal/Leaird Water Main Replacement Important $515,000
Well Booster Station (1 of 2) Important $350,000 New Well at Steere Farm (1 of 3) Important $200,000
Detroit Street Water Main Replacement Desirable $250,000 Sodium Hydroxide Feed Facility Upgrades Important $3,000,000
Eisenhower Parkway Water Main Desirable $275,000 Well Booster Station (2 of 2) Important $1,150,000
Geddes Dam - Paint Structural Steel Desirable $250,000 AARR Water Main bore Desirable $225,000
Miller Avenue Water Main Replacement Desirable $600,000 Gravity & West High Boundary Valve Replacements Desirable $400,000
Repair Roof of South Industrial Tank Desirable $500,000 Manchester Elevated Water Tank Paint Project Desirable $700,000
Washtenaw Water Main Upgrade (South U. to Hill) Desirable $560,000 North State Street Water Main Replacement Desirable $125,000
TOTAL $8,545,000 Replace Filter Press Plates Desirable $350,000
Sludge Storage Repairs Desirable $250,000
TOTAL $8,355,000

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Elevated Storage Tank (West High Service District) (2 of 2) Urgent $2,300,000 Replace Section of Well Transmisison Pipe from Steere Farm (3 of 3) Urgent $1,400,000
Replace Section of Well Transmisison Pipe from Steere Farm (2 of 3) Urgent $850,000 New Well at Steere Farm (3 of 3) Important $1,200,000
New Well at Steere Farm (2 of 3) Important $500,000 Pauline/WHS Return Loop Water Main (1 of 2) Desirable $2,020,000
North University Court Water Main Desirable $235,000 Pauline/WHS Return Loop Water Main (2 of 2) Desirable $380,000
Packard Water Main Bore Desirable $130,000 Plant #2 Hydraulic Corrections Desirable $725,000
TOTAL $4,015,000 State Street Raw Water Main - Reconstruct Interconnection Desirable $180,000
TOTAL $5,905,000
Project Name (Non-Water Fund)
Barton Dam - Paint Structural Steel (Fund 0010) Important $250,000
TOTAL $250,000

TOTAL NEED $4,265,000


FY2010-2015 AIRPORT PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011

$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost
Environmental Assessment/Prelim. Design - Runway Safety Ext. Urgent $6,750 $263,250 $270,000 800' Runway Safety Extension Urgent $37,250 $1,452,750 $1,490,000
TOTAL $6,750 $263,250 $270,000 TOTAL $37,250 $1,452,750 $1,490,000

FY2012 FY2013

$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost
Airport Looping Water Main Urgent $330,000 $0 $330,000 Terminal Area Security Fencing Urgent $4,875 $190,125 $195,000
Airport Access Road Reconstruction (Airport Boulevard) Important $5,365 $209,235 $214,600 Airport Storm Water Detention Pond and System Important $9,320 $363,480 $372,800
Six Box Hangars Important $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 New Terminal Apron Lighting Important $2,540 $99,060 $101,600
Taxilane For Box Hangars Important $4,100 $158,400 $162,500 TOTAL $16,735 $652,665 $669,400
Terminal Auto Parking Lot Expansion Important $1,005 $39,195 $40,200
TOTAL $1,340,470 $406,830 $1,747,300

FY2014 FY2015+

$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Fund 0048) (Outside Funding) Estimated Cost
Airport/Aircraft Parking Apron Expansion (east of terminal) Important $9,590 $374,110 $383,700 Terminal Expansion Important $800,000 $0 $800,000
New Corporate Hangers (Bond Funding) Important $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 Relocate Airport Drive Desirable $11,690 $456,010 $467,700
TOTAL $1,009,590 $374,110 $1,383,700 TOTAL $811,690 $456,010 $1,267,700
FY2010-2015 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (1 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000 ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (2 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000
Curb Ramps in the DDA (DDA Funded) Urgent $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 Curb Ramps in the DDA (DDA Funded) Urgent $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000
Fifth and Division Improvements (Grant/ DDA Funded) Important $7,000,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Liberty (State Street to City Boundary) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $138,000 $138,000
Geddes Road Non-Motorized Facilities (Earhart to US-23) Important $1,250,000 $0 $0 $1,250,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Packard (Stadium Blvd. to Eisenhower) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $106,000 $106,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Liberty (State Street to City Boundary) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: State Street (Depot to City Boundary) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Packard (Stadium Blvd. to Eisenhower) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 TOTAL $200,000 $0 $854,000 $1,054,000
TOTAL $8,450,000 $0 $640,000 $9,090,000

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (1 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (2 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Model for Mobility: Fuller Rd Multi-Modal Center- Design Urgent $2,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000 Geddes Avenue Non-Motorized Path Urgent $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000
Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (1 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000 Model for Mobility: Fuller Rd Multi-Modal Center- Design Urgent $2,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (1 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (2 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000
Signature Transit Service Feasibility Study (1 of 2) (Fund 0010) Urgent $320,000 $0 $107,000 $427,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (2 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
Model for Mobility: Plymouth Road Rail Station Important $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 Signature Transit Service Design (1 of 3) ( Fund 0010) Urgent $833,000 $0 $417,000 $1,250,000
Platt Road Sidewalk (Special Assess for 0061) Important $56,250 $0 $18,750 $75,000 Signature Transit Service Feasibility Study (2 of 2) (Fund 0010) Urgent $160,000 $0 $53,000 $213,000
Model for Mobility: Ann Arbor Detroit Commuter Parking (Interim) (1 of 2) Desirable $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 Amtrak Station Relocation (1 of 3) Desirable $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000
Model for Mobility: WALLY (Capital Investment) (1 of 2) ( Fund 0010) Desirable $31,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $32,000,000 Ann Arbor Detroit Commuter Parking (Interim) (2 of 2) Desirable $160,000 $0 $0 $160,000
Model for Mobility: WALLY Downtown Station (1 of 3) Desirable $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 Model for Mobility: WALLY (Capital Investment) (1 of 2) ( Fund 0010) Desirable $31,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $32,000,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (1 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 Model for Mobility: WALLY Downtown Station (2 of 3) Desirable $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
Signal Priority for Transit (1 of 2) Desirable $70,000 $18,000 $0 $88,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (2 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
TOTAL $34,396,250 $188,000 $1,215,750 $35,800,000 Signal Priority for Transit (2 of 2) Desirable $200,000 $48,000 $0 $248,000
TOTAL $34,988,000 $518,000 $1,560,000 $37,066,000
TOTAL NEED $42,846,250 $188,000 $1,855,750 $44,890,000
TOTAL NEED $35,188,000 $518,000 $2,414,000 $38,120,000

FY2012 FY2013

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (3 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000 ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (4 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000
South Main Street Non-Motorized Path (AA-Saline to East Stadium) (Special Assess for 0061) Urgent $820,000 $60,000 $120,000 $1,000,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Plymouth Road (Broadway Bridge to City Limit) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Main Street (Eisenhower to M-14) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Stadium Boulevard (Maple to Washtenaw) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: State Street (Depot to City Boundary) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $630,000 $630,000
TOTAL $820,000 $60,000 $960,000 $1,840,000

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (3 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (4 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
HAWK Pedestrian Signal (Chapin at West Huron) Urgent $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000 Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (4 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000
Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (3 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (4 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (3 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 Signature Transit Service Design (3 of 3) ( Fund 0010) Urgent $833,000 $0 $417,000 $1,250,000
Signature Transit Service Design (2 of 3) ( Fund 0010) Urgent $833,000 $0 $417,000 $1,250,000 Amtrak Station Relocation (3 of 3) Desirable $3,900,000 $0 $0 $3,900,000
Huron Street Improvement Important $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 Model for Mobility: WALLY (Downtown Station Construction) Desirable $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000
Amtrak Station Relocation (2 of 3) Desirable $450,000 $0 $0 $450,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (4 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
Model for Mobility: WALLY Downtown Station (3 of 3) Desirable $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 TOTAL $9,743,000 $170,000 $507,000 $10,420,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (3 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
TOTAL $3,493,000 $270,000 $507,000 $4,270,000 TOTAL NEED $9,743,000 $170,000 $1,137,000 $11,050,000

TOTAL NEED $4,313,000 $330,000 $1,467,000 $6,110,000

FY2014 FY2015+

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (5 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000 ADA Ramp Replacement (Outside DDA) (6 of 6) (Fund 0062) Urgent $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: AA-Saline Road (South Main to I-94) (1 of 2) Important $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 Non-Motorized Corridor Project: AA-Saline Road (South Main to I-94) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $153,000 $153,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Main Street (Eisenhower to M-14) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $337,000 $337,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $713,000 $713,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Plymouth Road (Broadway Bridge to City Limit) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $63,000 $63,000
Non-Motorized Corridor Project: Stadium Boulevard (Maple to Washtenaw) (2 of 2) Important $0 $0 $157,000 $157,000
TOTAL $0 $0 $1,157,000 $1,157,000

$ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non- $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0061) Estimated Cost
Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (6 of 7) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Annual City Shared Use Pathway Resurfacing & Replacements (6 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (5 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000 Sidewalk Gaps: School Access (Special Assess for 0061) (6 of 6) Urgent $10,000 $0 $30,000 $40,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (5 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Transit Access (Special Assess for 0061) (6 of 6) Urgent $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
Allens Creek Greenway Non-Motorized Feasibility Study Desirable $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 Non-Motorized Access West Huron River Drive to North Main Street Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Major Midblock Crossing Improvements (1 of 2) Desirable $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Allen Creek Greenway Non-Motorized Implementation Desirable $0 $0 $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (5 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 Major Midblock Crossing Improvements (2 of 2) Desirable $0 $250,000 $0 $250,000
TOTAL $310,000 $220,000 $90,000 $620,000 Model for Mobility - Transit Connector (construction) ( Fund 0010) Desirable $22,500,000 $0 $7,500,000 $30,000,000
Northeast Area Non-Motorized Trail (Fund 0040) Desirable $0 $65,000 $0 $65,000
TOTAL NEED $310,000 $220,000 $1,247,000 $1,777,000 Sidewalk Gaps: Citizen Requests (Special Assess for 0061) (6 of 6) Desirable $0 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000
TOTAL $22,510,000 $485,000 $11,140,000 $34,135,000

TOTAL NEED $22,510,000 $485,000 $11,853,000 $34,848,000


FY2010-2015 BRIDGE PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000 Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000
East Stadium Bridge Repair (over South State Street) - Stop-Gap Repairs Prior to Replacement Urgent $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000 East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over AARR) - Design Urgent $0 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000
East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over AARR) - Design Urgent $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000 East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over South State Street) - Design Urgent $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000
East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over South State Street) - Design Urgent $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000 TOTAL $0 $1,590,000 $0 $1,590,000
TOTAL $0 $1,390,000 $0 $1,390,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Ann Arbor-Saline Road Shared Use Path Bridge $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL NEED $0 $1,490,000 $0 $1,490,000 TOTAL NEED $0 $1,590,000 $0 $1,590,000

FY2012 FY2013
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000 Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $95,000 $0 $95,000
East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over AARR) Urgent $0 $2,300,000 $5,000,000 $7,300,000 East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over AARR) - Design Urgent $0 $1,503,500 $794,100 $2,297,600
East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over South State Street) Urgent $0 $2,086,720 $2,873,280 $4,960,000 East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over South State Street) - Design Urgent $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
TOTAL $0 $4,476,720 $7,873,280 $12,350,000 Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive Bridges Rehabilitation Urgent $0 $400,000 $100,000 $500,000
TOTAL $0 $2,998,500 $1,894,100 $4,892,600

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Pedestrian Access Over/Under Interstate: Wash/US-23; AA-Saline/I-94; State Street Corridor Important $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Pedestrian Access Over/Under Interstate: Wash/US-23; AA-Saline/I-94; State Street Corridor Important $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Morehead-Delaware Pedestrian Bridge (Fund 0010) Desirable $100,000 $0 $30,000 $130,000 Traver Road Pedestrian Bridge Desirable $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000
TOTAL $1,100,000 $0 $30,000 $1,130,000 TOTAL $1,000,000 $40,000 $0 $1,040,000

TOTAL NEED $1,100,000 $4,476,720 $7,903,280 $13,480,000 TOTAL NEED $1,000,000 $3,038,500 $1,894,100 $5,932,600

FY2014 FY2015+
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $95,000 $0 $95,000 Biennial Bridge Inspection Program Urgent $0 $95,000 $0 $95,000
East Stadium Bridge Replacement (over AARR) Urgent $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000 TOTAL $0 $95,000 $0 $95,000
Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive Bridges Rehabilitation Urgent $0 $601,100 $116,300 $717,400
TOTAL $0 $1,196,100 $116,300 $1,312,400

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost
Pedestrian Access Over/Under Interstate: Wash/US-23; AA-Saline/I-94; State Street Corridor Important $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Pedestrian Access Over/Under Interstate: Wash/US-23; AA-Saline/I-94; State Street Corridor Important $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000
TOTAL $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Allen Creek Greenway Bridges Desirable $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000
TOTAL $2,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000
TOTAL NEED $1,000,000 $1,196,100 $116,300 $2,312,400
TOTAL NEED $2,500,000 $95,000 $0 $2,595,000
FY2010-2015 NEW STREETS PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
Burton Road Improvements Desirable $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 Termination of Public Street Dead-Ends (north of Geddes) (1 of 5) Urgent $1,500,000 $0 $300,000 $1,800,000
TOTAL $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 Oakbrook Drive Extension (1 of 3) Important $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
TOTAL $1,600,000 $50,000 $350,000 $2,000,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total


Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0021) (Fund 0062) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL NEED $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 TOTAL NEED $1,600,000 $50,000 $350,000 $2,000,000

FY2012 FY2013
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
Termination of Public Street Dead-Ends (north of Geddes) (2 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Termination of Public Street Dead-Ends (north of Geddes) (3 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000
Oakbrook Drive Extension (2 of 3) Important $225,000 $112,500 $112,500 $450,000 Oakbrook Drive Extension (2 of 3) Important $608,333 $608,333 $608,333 $1,824,999
Woodcreek Boulevard Extension Important $1,125,000 $0 $0 $1,125,000 TOTAL $608,333 $608,333 $908,333 $2,124,999
TOTAL $1,350,000 $112,500 $412,500 $1,875,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
Queue Jump Lanes - Ann Arbor-Saline Road Desirable $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Queue Jump Lanes - Ann Abor-Saline Road Desirable $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000
Queue Jump Lanes - Washtenaw Avenue Desirable $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 Queue Jump Lanes - Maiden Lane/Fuller Road/Geddes Desirable $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
TOTAL $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 Queue Jump Lanes - Washtenaw Avenue Desirable $3,090,000 $0 $0 $3,090,000
TOTAL $3,390,000 $0 $0 $3,390,000
TOTAL NEED $1,700,000 $112,500 $412,500 $2,225,000
TOTAL NEED $3,998,333 $608,333 $908,333 $5,514,999

FY2014 FY2015+
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
Termination of Public Street Dead-Ends (north of Geddes) (4 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Termination of Public Street Dead-Ends (north of Geddes) (5 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $300,000 $0
TOTAL $225,000 $112,500 $112,500 $450,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Bonds) (Fund 0062/S.A.) Estimated Cost
Queue Jump Lanes - Ann Arbor-Saline Road Desirable $2,060,000 $0 $0 $2,060,000 Queue Jump Lanes - Maiden Lane/Fuller Road/Geddes Desirable $1,030,000 $0 $0 $1,030,000
Queue Jump Lanes - Maiden Lane/Fuller Road/Geddes Desirable $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 Queue Jump Lanes - Plymouth Road Desirable $2,260,000 $0 $0 $2,260,000
Queue Jump Lanes - Plymouth Road Desirable $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 TOTAL $3,290,000 $0 $0 $3,290,000
TOTAL $2,310,000 $0 $0 $2,310,000
TOTAL NEED $3,290,000 $0 $300,000 $3,590,000
TOTAL NEED $2,535,000 $112,500 $112,500 $2,760,000
FY2010-2015 OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
Safety Projects Grant Match (1 of 4) Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Safety Projects Grant Match (2 of 4) Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
TOTAL $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Washtenaw and Platt/Glenwood Intersection Improvements Important $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000
TOTAL $150,000 $0 $50,000 $200,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
Bird Road Retaining Walls (1200/1274/1277) Urgent $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 Accessable Pedestrian Signals (1 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
LED Streetlight Conversion (2 of 4) Urgent $0 $430,000 $0 $430,000 Geddes Road Sloughing Correction (1 of 2) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000
South State Street Signal Interconnect (1 of 2) Important $430,000 $0 $86,000 $516,000 LED Streetlight Conversion (3 of 4) Urgent $0 $430,000 $0 $430,000
TOTAL $430,000 $430,000 $186,000 $1,046,000 Pavement Marking & Sign Systems Replacements (1 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000
Pedestrian Signal Countdown Heads (1 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
TOTAL NEED $430,000 $430,000 $236,000 $1,096,000 Dhu Varren/Nixon Intersection Water Encroachment Important $0 $0 $75,000 $75,000
South State Street Signal Interconnect (2 of 2) Important $50,000 $0 $10,000 $60,000
TOTAL $50,000 $430,000 $640,000 $1,120,000

TOTAL NEED $200,000 $430,000 $690,000 $1,320,000

FY2012 FY2013
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
Safety Projects Grant Match (3 of 4) Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Newport - Miller Signal Important $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000
Central Campus Transit Center Desirable $1,900,000 $0 $0 $1,900,000 Safety Projects Grant Match (4 of 4) Important $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Plymouth Road/Commonwealth Signal Desirable $10,000 $0 $80,000 $90,000 TOTAL $300,000 $860,000 $1,832,500 $2,992,500
TOTAL $1,910,000 $0 $130,000 $2,040,000

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
Accessable Pedestrian Signals (2 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500 Accessable Pedestrian Signals (3 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
Geddes Road Sloughing Correction (2 of 2) Urgent $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Geddes Avenue Sloughing Correction (1 of 2) Urgent $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000
LED Streetlight Conversion (4 of 4) Urgent $0 $430,000 $0 $430,000 Pavement Marking & Sign Systems Replacements (3 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000
Pavement Marking & Sign Systems Replacements (2 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Pedestrian Signal Countdown Heads (3 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
Pedestrian Signal Countdown Heads (2 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500 TOTAL $0 $0 $755,000 $755,000
Nixon Road Study Desirable $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000
Seventh Street Signal Interconnect Desirable $500,000 $0 $100,000 $600,000 TOTAL NEED $300,000 $860,000 $2,587,500 $3,747,500
TOTAL $500,000 $630,000 $805,000 $1,935,000

TOTAL NEED $2,410,000 $630,000 $935,000 $3,975,000

FY2014 FY2015+
$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Funded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0

$ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate (Non $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost Project Name (Unfunded) Priority -City Funding) (Fund 0010) (Fund 0021) Estimated Cost
Accessable Pedestrian Signals (4 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500 Accessable Pedestrian Signals (5 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
Geddes Avenue Sloughing Correction (2 of 2) Urgent $0 $0 $500 $500,000 Pavement Marking & Sign Systems Replacements (5 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000
Pavement Marking & Sign Systems Replacements (4 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Pedestrian Signal Countdown Heads (5 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500
Pedestrian Signal Countdown Heads (4 of 5) Urgent $0 $0 $127,500 $127,500 State Street Corridor Study (1 of 2) Important $0 $750,000 $0 $750,000
Watershed Drive Retaining Wall (725 Watershed/3485 Narrow Gauge Important $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 Newport Road Retaining Walls (Miller to Westport) Desirable $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
Devonshire Retaining Wall (near Londerry) Desirable $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TOTAL $0 $750,000 $605,000 $1,355,000
Ellsworth Road Corridor Study Desirable $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Packard Road Signal Interconnect Desirable $300,000 $0 $60,000 $360,000 TOTAL NEED $0 $750,000 $605,000 $1,355,000
TOTAL $300,000 $50,000 $865,500 $1,215,500

TOTAL NEED $300,000 $50,000 $865,500 $1,215,500


FY2010-2015 PARKING FACILITIES PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name (Funded) Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
First & Washington Parking Structure Desirable $9,035,000 $0 $9,035,000 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $9,035,000 $0 $9,035,000 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0

FY2012 FY2013
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
Parking Structure Assessments Important $250,000 $0 $250,000 Parking Structure Assessments Important $250,000 $0 $250,000
TOTAL $250,000 $0 $250,000 TOTAL $250,000 $0 $250,000

FY2014 FY2015+
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (DDA Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
Parking Structure Assessments Important $250,000 $0 $250,000 Parking Structure Assessments Important $250,000 $0 $250,000
TOTAL $250,000 $0 $250,000 TOTAL $250,000 $0 $250,000
FY2010-2015 STREET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
AA-Saline/Eisenhower Intersection Urgent $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $2,850,000 $2,850,000
Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $2,790,000 $2,790,000 Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program (see specific road projects) Urgent $0 $0 $0
Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program (see specific road projects) Urgent $0 $0 $0 Stadium (7th to Kipke) (2 of 2) Urgent $1,200,000 $3,190,000 $4,390,000
Stadium (7th to Kipke) (1 of 2) Urgent $0 $500,000 $500,000 Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (2 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000
Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (1 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000 DDA Alley Repairs (2 of 6) (DDA Funded) Important $100,000 $0 $100,000
W. Stadium (Pauline to 7th) (2 of 2) Urgent $1,810,043 $3,115,000 $4,925,043 Dexter Ave. - Fairview to Maple (1 of 3) Important $0 $100,000 $100,000
DDA Alley Repairs (1 of 6) (DDA Funded) Important $0 $100,000 $100,000 Dexter Ave. - Huron to Fairview (1 of 2) Important $0 $150,000 $150,000
Earhart Road/Geddes Road Intersection Improvements Important $0 $500,000 $500,000 Geddes Ave Corridor - West (2 of 2) Important $0 $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Geddes Ave Corridor - West (1 of 2) Important $0 $300,000 $300,000 Green Rd. - Frederick to Glazier (1 of 2) Important $0 $75,000 $75,000
Miller Avenue Improvements (1 of 4) Important $0 $1,470,000 $1,470,000 Green Rd. - Plymouth to Frederick (1 of 3) Important $0 $90,000 $90,000
North Seventh St. Reconstruction - Huron to Miller (1 of 2) Important $0 $90,000 $90,000 Huron St Improvements (DDA Funded) Important $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000
W Madison Reconstruction Important $0 $1,590,000 $1,590,000 Miller Avenue Improvements (2 of 4) Important $0 $1,850,000 $1,850,000
TOTAL $1,810,043 $12,105,000 $13,915,043 North Seventh St. Reconstruction - Huron to Miller (2 of 2) Important $0 $975,000 $975,000
Stone School Road (Corridor) (1 of 2) Important $0 $250,000 $250,000
TOTAL $2,800,000 $11,380,000 $14,180,000

FY2012 FY2013
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $2,940,000 $2,940,000 Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $3,050,000 $3,050,000
Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $1,745,000 $1,745,000 Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $1,598,000 $1,598,000
Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (3 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000 Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (5 of 7) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000
DDA Alley Repairs (3 of 6) (DDA Funded) Important $100,000 $0 $100,000 Dexter Ave. - Fairview to Maple (3 of 3) Important $1,150,000 $670,000 $1,820,000
Dexter Ave. - Fairview to Maple (2 of 3) Important $0 $100,000 $100,000 Green Rd. - Plymouth to Frederick (3 of 3) Important $1,400,000 $822,000 $2,222,000
Dexter Ave. - Huron to Fairview (2 of 2) Important $1,323,000 $880,000 $2,203,000 Geddes Ave Corridor - East (1 of 2) Important $0 $300,000 $300,000
Green Rd. - Frederick to Glazier (2 of 2) Important $1,190,000 $785,000 $1,975,000 Stone School Road (Ellsworth to I-94) (3 of 3) Important $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Green Rd. - Plymouth to Frederick (2 of 3) Important $0 $90,000 $90,000 Fifth Avenue Reconstruction (2 of 2) Desirable $0 $1,210,000 $1,210,000
Stone School Road (Ellsworth to I-94) (2 of 2) Important $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Miller/Maple Intersection Improvements (2 of 2) Desirable $0 $170,000 $170,000
Fifth Avenue Reconstruction (1 of 2) Desirable $0 $250,000 $250,000 DDA Alley Repairs (4 of 6) (DDA Funded) Important $100,000 $100,000 $200,000
Miller/Maple Intersection Improvements (1 of 2) Desirable $0 $30,000 $30,000 Wall Street Streetscape Improvements Desirable $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000
TOTAL $2,613,000 $8,970,000 $11,583,000 TOTAL $4,650,000 $9,670,000 $14,320,000

FY2014 FY2015+
$ Estimate $ Estimate Total $ Estimate $ Estimate Total
Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost Project Name Priority (Outside Funding) (City Funding) Estimated Cost
Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $3,180,000 $3,180,000 Annual Local Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $3,330,000 $3,330,000
Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $1,030,000 $1,030,000 Annual Major Street Resurfacing Program Urgent $0 $4,180,000 $4,180,000
Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (5 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000 Surface Treatment (Street) Asset Management (6 of 6) Urgent $0 $150,000 $150,000
Geddes Ave Corridor - East (2 of 2) Important $0 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Miller Avenue Improvements (5 of 5) Important $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Geddes Rd HPW to Earhart Corridor Important $0 $300,000 $300,000 Detroit Street Brick Pavement Reconstruction (2 of 2) Desirable $1,620,000 $0 $1,620,000
Miller Avenue Improvements (4 of 5) Important $0 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 North State Street Brick Pavement Desirable $0 $250,000 $250,000
Detroit Street Brick Pavement Reconstruction (1 of 2) Desirable $0 $200,000 $200,000 DDA Alley Repairs (6 of 6) (DDA Funded) Important $100,000 $0 $100,000
DDA Alley Repairs (5 of 6) Important $100,000 $0 $100,000 TOTAL $1,720,000 $9,410,000 $11,130,000
TOTAL $100,000 $8,110,000 $8,210,000
FY2010-2015 CITY OWNED BUILDINGS PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name (Funded) Priority $ Estimate Project Name (Funded) Priority $ Estimate
Police Department/District Court Facility Urgent $22,180,000 Police Department/District Court Facility Urgent $11,270,000
Facility Assessments - Energy Audits and Improvements Important $30,000 Facility Assessments - Energy Audits and Improvements Important $30,000
721 North Main Street Site Desirable $146,180 TOTAL $30,000
Solar Energy Installation Desirable $100,000
Wind Energy Installation (W. R. Wheeler Service Center) Desirable $250,000
TOTAL $22,706,180

Project Name (Unfunded) Priority $ Estimate Project Name (Unfunded) Priority $ Estimate
333 East Huron Site Urgent $150,000 Guy C. Larcom: Re-Roof (Upper Levels) Urgent $85,000
$150,000 $85,000

TOTAL NEED $22,856,180 TOTAL NEED $115,000

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name (Funded) Priority $ Estimate Project Name (Funded) Priority $ Estimate
Facility Assessments - Energy Audits and Improvements Important $30,000 Facility Assessments - Energy Audits and Improvements Important $30,000
TOTAL $30,000 TOTAL $30,000

Project Name (Unfunded) Priority $ Estimate Project Name (Unfunded) Priority $ Estimate
Guy C. Larcom: Environmental Controls Important $125,000 Guy C. Larcom: Secondary Chiller Urgent $175,000
TOTAL $125,000 TOTAL $175,000

TOTAL NEED $155,000 TOTAL NEED $205,000

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name (Funded) Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Facility Assessments - Energy Audits and Improvements Important $30,000 $0
TOTAL $30,000 TOTAL $0

Project Name (Unfunded) Priority $ Estimate


Guy C. Larcom: Primary Chiller Replacement Important $200,000
TOTAL $200,000

TOTAL NEED $230,000


FY2010-2015 PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000 Park Bride Repairs (Annual) Urgent $250,000
Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000 Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000
Parks Road & Parking Lots (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $250,000 Cobblestone Farm Kitchen - Elevator Important $100,000
West Park Master Plan & Implementation Urgent-/Important + $333,333 Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000
Bandemer to Barton Underpass Urgent-/Important + $250,000 Tennis & Basketball Court Renovations (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $150,000
TOTAL $1,353,333 PROS Plan 5-Year Update Urgent $200,000
Fuller Park Soccer Field Lighting Desirable $450,000
Project Name (Previously Allocated) West Park Master Plan & Implementation Urgent-/Important + $333,333
Veterans Memorial Park Ice Areana Urgent $525,000 TOTAL $2,003,333
Buhr Park Facility Entry Improvements (Fund 0018) Urgent-/Important + $153,000
Bandemer Park Access Drive Important $300,000 Project Name (Previously Allocated)
Farmers Market Renovation Urgent $1,400,000 Fuller Park Parking Lot Renovation Important $250,000
Recreation Facilities Updates and Infrastructure Repairs Urgent $100,000
Park Bridge Repairs (Annual) Urgent $154,000 TOTAL NEED $2,253,333
TOTAL $2,632,000

Project Name (Unfunded)


Bandemer to Barton Underpass Urgent-/Important + $2,500,000

TOTAL NEED $6,485,333

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Trails & Pathways - New Construction (Annual) Urgent $200,000 Park Bride Repairs (Annual) Urgent $250,000
Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000 Trails & Pathways - New Construction (Annual) Urgent $200,000
Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000 Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000
Tennis & Basketball Court Renovations (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $150,000 Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000
Parks Road & Parking Lots (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $250,000 Tennis & Basketball Court Renovations (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $150,000
Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Desirable $115,000 Parks Road & Parking Lots (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $250,000
West Park Master Plan & Implementation Urgent-/Important + $333,333 Exterior Shelter Lighting Important $45,000
Cobblestone Farm Kitchen Important $175,000 Picnic Shelters Important $200,000
$1,743,333 Ann Arbor Senior Center (Study) Important $50,000
TOTAL $1,665,000
Project Name (Privately Funded)
Skate Park Facility Desirable $1,000,000

TOTAL NEED $2,743,333

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Trails & Pathways - New Construction (Annual) Urgent $200,000 Park Bride Repairs (Annual) Urgent $500,000
Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000 Trails & Pathways - New Construction (Annual) Urgent $600,000
Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000 Trails & Pathways - Repairs & Reconstruction (Annual) Urgent $250,000
Tennis & Basketball Court Renovations (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $150,000 Playground Improvements (Annual) Urgent $270,000
Parks Road & Parking Lots (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $250,000 Tennis & Basketball Court Renovations (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $300,000
Gallup Canoe Livery Important $165,000 Parks Road & Parking Lots (Annual) Urgent-/Important + $500,000
Historic Preservation Projects Important $60,000 Baseball Field Infield Replacement (Annual) Desirable $260,000
Garden Homes Path Lighting Important $225,000 Allen Creek Greenway Desirable $200,000
Mack Pool Repair Desirable $100,000 Baseball Field Infield Replacement (Annual) Desirable $1,560,000
TOTAL $1,670,000 Fuller Pool Spray Park Desirable $500,000
TOTAL $4,940,000
FY2010-2015 SOLID WASTE PROJECTS - 12/11/08
FY2010 FY2011
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Commercial Recycling Containers Urgent $204,000 Commercial Recycling Containers Urgent $182,000
Landfill Groundwater Management Urgent $730,000 Landfill Groundwater Management Urgent $270,000
Compost Operations Expansion Important $5,000 Compost Operations Expansion Important $20,000
Drop Off Station Important $30,000 Single Stream Recycling Important $3,500,000
Single Stream Recycling Important $2,030,000 Methane Gas Recovery Desirable $150,000
TOTAL $2,999,000 Wind Energy Installation (New Drop-Off Station) Desirable $260,000
TOTAL $4,382,000

FY2012 FY2013
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Commercial Recycling Containers Urgent $88,000 Commercial Recycling Containers Urgent $42,000
Compost Operations Expansion Important $462,000 Drop Off Station Important $4,215,000
Equipment and Container Storage Building Desirable $200,000 TOTAL $4,257,000
TOTAL $750,000

FY2014 FY2015+
Project Name Priority $ Estimate Project Name Priority $ Estimate
Drop Off Station Important $250,000 $0
TOTAL $250,000 TOTAL $0